Journal of Management Sciences - Aim · Journal of Management Sciences Other possible clariﬁcation to this fact is that the core job of leaders is to manage work, motivate team

Journal

ofManagem

entSciences

Journal of Management Sciences

Does Project Teamwork Matter? Investigatingthe Relationship between TransformationalLeadership and Project Success

Affiliation:Syed Muhammad Javed IqbalDepartment of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur.Email: [email protected]

Muhammad Shahid NawazDepartment of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur.

Sulaman Hafeez SiddiquiDepartment of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur.

Muhammad Kashif ImranDepartment of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur.

Manuscript InformationSubmission Date: February 26, 2019Acceptance Date: June 14, 2019

Citation in APA Style:Iqbal, S. M. J., Nawaz, M. S., Siddiqui, S.H., & Imran, M. K. (2019). Managing Or-ganizational Effectiveness through Talent Management and Career Development: TheMediating Role of Employee Engagement, Journal of Management Sciences, 6 (1), 79-95.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1906106

.

Does Project Teamwork Matter? Investigating the Relationship

between Transformational Leadership and Project Success

Syed Muhammad Javed Iqbal ∗ Muhammad Shahid Nawaz †

Sulaman Hafeez Siddiqui ‡ Muhammad Kashif Imran §

Abstract: It is evident from the existing research that transformational leaders play a vital role towardthe project success, but little is known about the channels that elaborate this effect. To unveil one of thesechannels, this study supposed project teamwork as the mediator between transformational leadership andproject success. To test the stated empirical relationship, data were obtained from 125 project managersworking on various projects of Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. The results revealed thatproject teamwork partially mediates the relationship between project leadership and project success. The studyhas also discussed valuable implications including theoretical, practical and managerial.

Keywords: Project leadership, project success, project teamwork, transformational leadership,Higher Education Commission.

Introduction

The relationship between transformational leadership (TL) and project success (PS) hasbeen well conceived in contemporary research. In general, the extant literature explainedthat transformational leaders enhance PS by providing right direction and guidance tocomplete the given tasks efficiently and effectively (Lindgren & Packendorff, 2009; Anan-tatmula, 2010; Ayub, 2015). The theme underlying this statement is that TL helps to iden-tify the critical success factors in a project and plays key role to remove the bottlenecks(Besteiro, de Souza Pinto, & Novaski, 2015; Pinto & Slevin, 1988). According to B. Bass andAvolio (1995), emergence of TL improves the performance outcomes of organizations. Hepresented TL theory that claims that such type of leaders has positive impact individual,group and organizational level. Despite of assumed affirmative effect of TL on PS, stillproject failure figures are dominating the success ratios in project management (Zwikael& Smyrk, 2012). Moreover, some empirical investigations do not support the hypothesisthat TL has direct association with PS (Nixon, Harrington, & Parker, 2012). Furthermore,literature gives evidence that TL does not affect PS directly but develops capabilities thatlead to PS (Aga, Noorderhaven, & Vallejo, 2016; Dwivedula, Bredillet, & Muller, 2016).The instructions given by leaders may also been affected by time lag to reach at PS.

∗Department of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur. E-mail: [email protected]†Department of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur.‡Department of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur.§Department of Management Sciences, Islamia University of Bahawalpur.

79

Journal of Management SciencesVol. 6(1): 79-95, 2019DOI: 10.20547/jms.2014.1906106


Other possible clarification to this fact is that the core job of leaders is to managework, motivate team members and provide facilitation when it is needed and not merelyrestricted to rewarding the project (Keller, 2006; Aga et al., 2016). In this respect, thequoted literature has also given indication that there is “black-box” between TL and PS.First, Keegan and Den Hartog (2004) established a weak correlation between TL and PSas compared to line managers. Additionally, they suggested finding out mediating andmoderating variables that may have TL as antecedent and PS as outcome. Second, Piccoloand Colquitt (2006) highlighted that research is silent about the processes that TL used toenhance the chances of success in projects. Finally, Avolio, Zhu, Koh, and Bhatia (2004) ar-gued that better work behaviors can be achieved with transformational leaders if resultantprocesses and boundary conditions become efficient. In order to fulfill this gap, variousstudies have been conducted and find out intervening variables between TL and PS; i.e.,psychological empowerment (Avolio et al., 2004), trust (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey,2013), cognitive trust and collective efficacy (Chou, Lin, Chang, & Chuang, 2013) em-ployee perceived job characteristics and job motivation (Fernet, Trepanier, Austin, Gagne,& Forest, 2015) and learning orientation (Zagorsek, Dimovski, & Skerlavaj, 2009; Imran,Ilyas, & Aslam, 2016). Furthermore, Gundersen, Hellesøy, and Raeder (2012) set directionfor further research to unveil the role TL in project teams by introducing efficient team-work mechanisms. Recently, Banks, McCauley, Gardner, and Guler (2016); Kozlowski andIlgen (2006) conducted meta-analysis in the fields of TL and teamwork and call for fur-ther empirical researches to enhance the success rate of projects. Moreover, contemporaryliterature also suggests investigating the project teamwork as an indicator to increase suc-cess rate of projects (Scott-Young & Samson, 2007; Turner, Huemann, & Keegan, 2008). Inthis connection, Yang, Huang, and Wu (2011) pointed out that TL is one of the antecedentsof project teamwork.

To address the aforementioned calls, this research introduces project teamwork as me-diating variable and builds the hypothesis that TL has indirect effect on PS via projectteamwork. Apart from the call for research, there are other reasons for this focus. First,extant literature explained the vital role of TL and project teamwork (Yang et al., 2011;Aga et al., 2016). Second, a good amount of research also proved link between team-work and PS (Scott-Young & Samson, 2007; Lindsjørn, Sjøberg, Dingsøyr, Bergersen, &Dyba, 2016; Unger-Aviram, Zwikael, & Restubog, 2013). Finally, to date, scant researchis available addressing PS through TL with the intervention of project teamwork. To testthe exposition, a survey has been conducted by 125 project managers working on varioushigher education commission projects in Pakistan.

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses

Talent Management

The concept of leadership has been appropriately comprehended in the extant litera-ture and its link with various organizational domains was also established (Turner et al.2008). Within different leadership concepts, TL has been consider as vital towards project

80


(Geoghegan & Dulewicz, 2008). The charismatic characteristics of TL become the influ-encing factor to align this concept with PS (Imran et al., 2016). Morgan (2012) call for newavenue namely “project leadership” in leadership literature that particularly emphasizeon PS factors. The key criteria of PS quality, cost and time as defined by Muller, Geraldi,and Turner (2012); Scott-Young and Samson (2007) should be fulfilled to reach at PS. Inearlier literature, researchers explored the concept of leadership in relation to various as-pects of project (Morgan, 2012; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).

The TL theory posits that leaders can increase the chances of success by promotingcommitment and efficacy. In this regard, the link between dimensions of TL as definedby Posner and Kouzes (1988) and PS has been tested by Sumner, Bock, and Giamartino(2006). They found that TL characteristics are positively corrected PS factors. Afterward,these results were validated by Keller (2006); Strang (2007); Walker (2011) in differentcontext and industries i.e., R & D projects, construction projects. Furthermore, Carless,Wearing, and Mann (2000) emphasized of context and cultural differences of projects andmixed nature impacts of TL on such projects. Therefore, based on above discussion, thefollowing hypotheses have been postulated:

H1: There is positive, significant and direct relationship between TL behaviors of project man-agers and PS factors.

It has been witnessed from contemporary literature that leadership and developingteams are closely associated (Sohmen, 2013). Yang, Wu, and Huang (2013) defined theproject team as the combination of collaboration, communication and cohesiveness. Projectleaders positively contribute to the development of better project teams. Anyhow, the re-searchers have reported that the role of a team leader had been neglected in the teamrelated studies (Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008; Unger-Aviram et al., 2013). Despite fewstudies, the scholars have accepted that transformational leaders can positively influencetheir followers for their professional development and performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio,& Shamir, 2002; X.-H. F. Wang & Howell, 2012). To get the fruits from TL behaviors andtheir contributions toward PS and project teamwork, it is needed to conduct the empiricalstudies so that it can capture the attention of project leaders to adopt different leader-ship style to complete the projects with success with their teams (Yang et al., 2011). Simi-larly, Gundersen et al. (2012) indicated in a study of complex international project settingsthat transformational leaders have significant and positive impact on the performance ofproject teams.

It is important here to discuss the concept of project teamwork, in particular for thestudy. Thus, different terms have been found in literature to discuss project teamwork.Such as, few researchers have considered team communication and cohesion as ‘team-work processes’ and argued that although there may be several other relevant factorsthat can be included in teamwork processes (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler,2004). Moreover, Yang et al. (2013) taken into account the project team’s communication,their cohesiveness and collaboration as ‘project teamwork’. However, the current studyhas introduced the project teamwork as a four-dimensional construct, i.e. project teamcommunication, cohesiveness, collaboration and technical skills. In addition, Kendra and

81


Taplin (2004); Braun et al. (2013) claimed that rare studies have been found investigatingthe effect of project leadership behaviours on project team performance, and out of thesestudies majority of researchers have concluded that TL is significantly and positively as-sociated with project teamwork in terms of their communication, cohesiveness, collabo-ration and technical skills (B. M. Bass, 2000; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; E. Wang,Chou, & Jiang, 2005). Therefore, based on above discussions following hypotheses havebeen developed to know their significance in higher education projects of Pakistan:

H2: There is positive, significant and direct relationship between PMTL behaviours and projectteamwork.

In addition to effective leadership behaviours, project team also positively contributestowards success of any project. According to Salas et al. (2008), PS is significantly cor-related with team performance. However, there is scant evidences are available on suchempirical relationship (Yang et al., 2011). Anyhow, careful selection of project managerand project teams are guaranteed factors for improving the project efficiency and effec-tiveness (Slevin, 1987; Pinto & Prescott, 1988).

Accordingly, Unger-Aviram et al. (2013) specified that team performance guaranteedproject efficiency. Further, Sohmen (2013) indicated that team performance is the functionof effective communication. Similarly, a good amount of research has concluded that teamcommunication was found to be strongly associated with team performance (Dionne etal., 2004). Additionally, team cohesiveness is the other key factor that contribute to PS, bet-ter the performance of the project (Keller, 2006; Martens, Machado, Martens, de Oliveira eSilva, & de Freitas, 2018). Team cohesiveness can be measured through the degree to be-longingness and commitment of the team members to remain in team or not (E. Wang etal., 2005). Therefore, existence of cohesiveness among teams cannot be ignored in relationto PS. On the basis of extant literature, following hypotheses have been formulated:

H3: There is positive, significant and direct relationship between project teamwork and PSfactors.

However, the project teamwork has been found to be positively and significantly cor-related with project leadership and at the same time with PS. These justifications gaveconfidence to the researcher to investigate the effect of project teamwork as potential me-diator, individually and collectively between PMTL behaviors and PS factors. To analyzethe mediating effect of project teamwork, following hypotheses have been postulated:

H4: Project managers’ TL behaviors get the PS factors with and through project teamwork.

82


Figure 1Theoretical Framework of the Study

Research Methodology

Research Settings and Participant

This research has been conducted in contrived settings of various HEC-Projects in Pak-istan. The study keens to investigate the TL behaviors among project managers and theirimpact on PS factors with respect to HEC projects. On several requests, the HEC onlyprovided the limited information regarding the said projects. These project managersmay belong to academic, administration and engineering wings, depending upon the na-ture of project and responsibilities of the concerned managers. The address contained theinformation about title of the selected project and was disseminated to the planning anddevelopment department of the concerned university. Planning and development depart-ments were requested through a cover letter to send the questionnaires to the concernedproject managers who are/were directly responsible for the smooth execution of the saidproject.

Sample Selection

The study employed systematic probability sampling as list of total existing populationwas known. In addition, the study overcomes the issue of generalizability because ittargets the projects of higher education started from 2002 to 2011 (HEC, 2013) from entire

83


higher education institutions of Pakistan. HEC at that time was dealing with 788 projects(HEC, 2010-11). Following table describes the sample selection using systematic samplingtechnique.

As the study employs systematic sampling and in which every kth element is includedin the sample randomly. The k is calculated as dividing total population with desiredsample size, i.e. k = (788/201) = 4.0. Therefore, total sample of the study consisted of198 project managers. There may be some chances of errors while selecting the sample,as Zikmund, Babin, Carr, and Griffin (2013) argued that it is very difficult to compile anerror-free sampling list from population.

Table 1Detail of Total HEC Projects

Sr # Provinces/ Territories/Institutions Total projects (A) Project managers

sample (A/k), k=4Percentage of totalselected projects

1 Federal 122 31 16%2 HEC 115 29 15%3 Punjab 227 57 29%4 Sindh 151 38 19%5 Khyber Pakhtun khuwa 101 25 13%6 Baluchistan 44 11 5%7 Gilgit Baltistan 7 2 1%8 Azad Jammu & Kashmir 21 5 2%

Total 788 198 100%

Instrument Selection

This study utilized survey research method and was indulged with primary data only.The questionnaire survey is a common technique used for data collection in entrepreneur-ship and management research (Tehseen, Ramayah, & Sajilan, 2017). Data were collectedusing self-administered survey questionnaire form project managers working on variousprojects. A well-structured questionnaire was used in the study to measure the PMTLbehaviors through combination of two TL inventories, i.e. LPI and MLQ. To measurethe dependent variable and one sub-dimension of mediating variable, (such as, projectteam technical skills) tool is mainly taken from a questionnaire developed by Pinto andSlevin (1988). In addition, to measure the project team communication and collabora-tion, the items are sourced from Tjosvold (1988); Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993)and project team cohesiveness in mainly taken from (E. Wang et al., 2005; Henry, Ar-row, & Carini, 1999). The part-B of the designed tool has been divided into 6 sectionsmeasuring the PMTL behaviors toward project teamwork and PS. First five section con-tains six statements based on a rating scale ranging from almost never to almost alwaysand sixth dimension contains 3 behavioral statements covering the vector from stronglydisagree to strongly agree. The variation in scale of independent variables is because oftheir originality. The inventors of these tools have developed these items according totheir psychometric properties. Interestingly, the issue of multi-scale is efficiently handledthrough PLS-SEM.

84


Control Variables

To test the empirical model, key triggers that have potential to impact PS remained con-trolled i.e., experience, gender, qualifications, position held, training, professional certifi-cation, and nature of their concerned projects.

Results

The study results are elaborated in the way the analysis was done. First and foremost,we represent the sample description, correlation, validity and reliability and then mainhypotheses testing.

Sample Description

In cumulative, 198 structured questionnaires were dispatched project-wise, to the con-cerned project managers through their respective P & D Departments. Returned numberof questionnaires was 129 out of them 125 questionnaires were considered complete inall respects, yielding a response rate of 63%. The study descriptive revealed that bothmales and females were working on projects comprising a total of 83 males and 42 fe-males. Maximum project managers posses less than 15 years of experience. The detailsof these respondents with respect to their projects comprised on: Information Technol-ogy (IT) projects (28%), Construction (16.80%), Human Resource Development (13.60%),Infrastructure Development (8.80%), Lab Research and Equipment (7.20%), Facilities forStudents and Faculties (7.20%), Library (3.20%), R & D (9.60%), Basic Sciences (2.40%),Residential Projects (0.80%), Medical Sciences (1.60%), and Others (0.80%). Interestingly,it was came to know that almost all participants hold university education degree but lessthan 50% hold professional certification.

Table 2Correlation Matrix among Control Variables and Dependent Variable of the Study

PSFactors Gender Total Exp Total Exp PM Qualification Position Training Prof Certification Project Type

PS Factors 1Gender 0.072 1Total Exp 0.071 0.046 1Total Exp PM -0.023 0.121 0.650** 1Qualification 0.161 0.173 0.154 0.137 1Position -0.060 -0.017 -0.185* -0.345** -0.225* 1Training 0.118 0.097 -0.011 0.049 0.007 -.293** 1Prof Certification 0.066 -0.097 0.082 0.012 -0.192* 0.221* -0.133 1Project Type -0.096 0.280** 0.158 0.069 0.069 -0.049 -0.031 -0.044 1**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).Total Exp = Total Job Experience, Total Exp PM = Total Experience as Project Manager, Prof Certification = Professional Certification

Testing the Measurement Model

Before testing the correlation and regression analysis, various covenants have been testedto reach at reliable results. In this respect, first of all reliability of the reflective constructs

85


was ensured. All items fall under the minimum acceptable criteria of 0.4 or greater factorloading and have been included in the questionnaire as per the guidelines provided by(Byrne, 2016; Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2012). Further, six items were not meet theacceptable standards of Average Variance Explained (AVE) and deleted from the ques-tionnaire i.e., PPQ1, PPQ2, PMG5, CAQ3, CAQ5 and CCQ4. Further, values of apha areabove 0.7 for all scales and comonality values are above 0.5 which ensures the validityand reliability of the instrument (Hair, Anderson, Babin, & Black, 2010).

The entire inter-correlation results have been incorporated in Table 3 which shows cor-relation among dependent and control variables which remains insignificant and Table 4which shows the correlation among all the study variables, values of which are signifi-cant at maximum 95% level of confidence. Most of the study variables significantly andpositively correlated among each other at (p < 0.01). Unsurprisingly, the overall data dis-closed that the entire constructs are substantially supporting the research objectives andresearch questions of the study.

Table 3Correlations among all Study Variables

PS MW ISV CP EOA EH IC TL PTTS PTCom PTCol PTCoh

PS Factors (PS) 1Model the Way (MW) .570** 1Inspire a Share Vision (ISV) .573** .422** 1Challenge the Process (CP) .697** .410** .429** 1Enable Others to Act (EOA) .408** .202* .204* .264** 1Encourage the Heart (EH) .360** 0.174 .175 .133 .261** 1Individual Consideration (IC) .529** .349** .243** .441** .304** .143 1TL (TL) .832** .674** .679** .744** .560** .536** .542** 1Project Team Technical Skills (PTTS) .599** .401** .325** .465** .124 .071 .298** .451** 1Project Team Communication (PTCom) .711** .344** .512** .558** .395** .355** .426** .689** .406** 1Project Team Collaboration (PTCol) .742** .517** .465** .630** .275** .306** .547** .716** .548** .616** 1Project Team Cohesiveness (PTCoh) .739** .446** .443** .563** .285** .213* .405** .626** .558** .568** .656** 1**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypotheses Testing

The structural model was executed through Smart PLS 3.0 and results indicated in twoformats: first, the overall impact and second with inner facets of the PMTL. The first hy-pothesis states that project managers practicing a TL behavior can significantly enhancethe PS factors. The results supported the hypothesis 1 and explain that project manager’sTL caused 69% variation (R2=0.693, p<0.001) in PS. Further, the validity of this structuralmodel is evident as value of Q2 (0.69) is indicating the desired health of the model. Facet-wise analysis reflected a significant impact of leadership dimensions on PS, evident fromTable 4. Moreover, ‘challenge the process’ is TL behavior which reserves highest regres-sion coefficient with PS factors and ‘enable others to act’ is having the least but significantimpact at p<0.05. In addition, the validity of this structural model is also evident as Q2

value (0.653) is far greater than zero. From the study findings, it is obvious that all theindividual dimensions of project managers’ leadership are sufficiently predicting the en-dogenous construct in HEC projects in Pakistan. In addition, value of R2 indicated thatthese constructs altogether, explain variance more than seventy two percent in PS factors

86


observing the robust statistical power in the estimation of parameter (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 4Regression between project leadership and PS

Proposed Relationships β T R2 Q2

H1: Project Leadership Behavior PS 0.832** 29.127 0.693 0.69Model the Way PS 0.201** 3.458Inspired a shared vision PS 0.224** 3.166Challenge the Process PS 0.388** 5.887Enable others to Act PS 0.121* 2.040Encourage the Heart PS 0.179** 2.693Individualized Consideration PS 0.171** 2.722PS Factors 0.717 0.653Note: * and ** represent p<0.05 and 0.01 confidence interval, respectively.

The second hypothesis was formed to examine the direct effect of PMTL behaviors onproject teamwork (in terms of communication, cohesiveness, collaboration and technicalskills). These relationships have been statistically narrated in Table 6, based on the hy-pothesis (H2) of the study. The results showed that the TL behavior of project managersnot only has a positive but also significant impact on project teamwork, evident from thep-value (p < 0.01). In addition, value of Q2 (0.557) provides the evidence of the predictiverelevance of this path model.

Table 5Regression between project leadership and projectteamwork

Relationships β T R2 Q2

H2 : PLB PTW 0.75** 16.287 0.558 0.557PLB PT Com 0.69** 13.27 0.47 0.467PLB PT Coh 0.63** 13.22 0.39 0.388PLB PT Col 0.72** 9.781 0.51 0.513PLB PT TS 0.45** 4.755 0.20 0.185Note: ** represents 1% level of significance.PLB = Project Leadership Behaviors, PTW=ProjectTeam Work, PT Com =Project Team, Communication,PT Coh = Project Team Cohesiveness, PT Col = ProjectTeam Collaboration, PT TS = Project Team Technical Skills

Furthermore, facet-wise structural paths were empirically reflected in Table 6, that es-tablished that PMTL has positive impact on all teamwork dimensions at p < 0.01. In ad-dition, the overall statistical values were also evident that validity of model was ensuredas Q2 values (0.467, 0.388, 0.513 and 0.185) of project team communication, cohesiveness,collaboration and their technical skills, respectively are greater than zero (see Table 6).

The third hypothesis is postulated to investigate whether there is positive, significantand direct relationship between project teamwork and PS factors in HEC projects? Theresults are elaborated in Table 7 and this path model is designed carefully to analyze theeffects of project teamwork with the PS factors as a single construct. The results affirmedthe direct, significant and positive effect of project teamwork on PS factors with 72% vari-ation. Moreover, the overall structural model was validated through Q2 with a value of0.715 (see table 6).

87


Table 6Regression between project leadership and project


H3 : PTW PS 0.85** 31.01 0.72 0.71PTCom PS 0.31** 4.23PTCoh PS 0.30** 3.16PTCol PS 0.27** 2.86PTTS PS 0.16** 2.85PS Factors 0.74 0.696Note: ** represents 1% level of significance.

The detailed analysis shows that individual dimensions of project teamwork are sig-nificantly and positively correlated with PS in which team communication has strongesteffect. The model was reliable having R2 value as 0.74 and Q2 value as 0.696.

The final hypothesis investigates the mediating effect of project teamwork on the re-lationship between PMTL and PS. The results found that PMTL has significant positiveimpact on project teams, subsequently a strong and significant relationship was foundbetween project teamwork and PS. The indirect effect of PMTL is also positive and sig-nificant (0.38, p < 0.01), see Table 8. At the same time, after introducing the project team-work in the path model, the direct relationship between PMTL and PS was reduced butremained significant (β = 0.45, p < 0.01), with a ∆ of 0.38, when project teamwork wasasserted in the relationship (see Figure 4.5, β = 0.83). Moreover, in PLS-SEM, Variance Ac-counted For (VAF) is used to validate a mediating relationship among the study variables.In this particular case, VAF came up with a value 46% (see Table 8) validating partial butstronger mediation of project teamwork between the relationship of PMTL on PS factors(Hair et al., 2010) in HEC projects in Pakistan.

Table 7Indirect effect Project Leadership on PS through Project Teamwork


H4: PLB PTW PS 0.81 0.809PLB PTW 0.75** 14.716 0.56 0.505PTW PS 0.51** 7.85PLB PS 0.45** 7.639 0.81 0.809

Indirect Effect (a) = 0.75 * 0.51 = 0.38***Direct Effect (b) = 0.45***Total Effect (a+b) = c = 0.38 + 0.45 = 0.832***VAF = a/c FALSEDirect Effect PLB PS (see Figure 4.5) = 0.83***Note: ** represents 1% level of significance.PLB =Project Leadership Behaviors, PTW=Project Teamwork, PS= PSFactors.

The detailed facet wise analysis also showed that all facet of project teamwork medi-ates the relationship between PMTL and PS i.e., project teamwork communication (0.180,p<0.001), project teamwork cohesiveness (0.224, p<0.001), project teamwork collabora-tion (0.215, p<0.001) and project teamwork communication (0.127, p<0.001).

88


Table 7Facet-wise Mediation Effect

Constructs Direct Effect Indirect Effect VIF Q2

PLBPTComPS 0.83 0.180 22% 0.715PLBPTCohPS 0.83 0.224 27% 0.756PLBPTColPS 0.83 0.215 26% 0.717PLBPTTSPS 0.83 0.127 15% 0.752

Discussion

The aim of the study was to explore the mediating effect of project teamwork betweenPMTL and PS. The study examines display that TL is not only positively associated withproject teamwork, but also it may improve their individual skills. The study findingsalso indicated a significant relationship between project teamwork and PS factors. Theseconsequent relationships of project teamwork gave confidence to the researcher to analyzethe teamwork as a potential mediator in the study.

There are six key points can be extracted from this research. First, PMTL have directpositive effect on PS. This relationship was tested by taking the average of 6 leadership be-haviors by combining two well-known TL models discussed above. The combination wasselected in order to improve existing models of TL, resulting in the affirmation. The ob-tained results were found not different from prior studies conducted in developed coun-tries (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005; Geoghegan & Dulewicz, 2008; Clarke, 2010). However,the study is different from others because it proved statistically that a project managercan practice more than one TL model during their projects. This is not only beneficialfor the PS but also for project teams and professional growth of project managers them-selves. Second, “challenge the process” among other PMTL styles is the most significantbehavior. Third, project managers alone are not sufficient to accomplish a PS fully un-less they get the support of a team (Sheard & Kakabadse, 2002; Huemann, 2010; Verburg,Bosch-Sijtsema, & Vartiainen, 2013). Fourth, there is direct effect of project teamwork,individually and collectively on PS factors. The study results are also in line with theprevious studies discussing the relationship between project teamwork and PS (Pinto &Prescott, 1988; Nixon et al., 2012; Dong, Bartol, Zhang, & Li, 2017). Hence, findings areequally good to increase success chances of projects in Pakistan as to respond cultural dif-ferences. Fifth, project teamwork has mediating effect on the relationship of PMTL behav-iors and PS factors. The study discussed project teamwork through the lens of mediationas a four-dimensional construct, for the first time in higher education projects of Pakistan.Moreover, with respect to mediation, the study results are also found in line with Yang etal. (2013) that project teamwork can induce a stronger relationship between project leader-ship and PS. Finally, the researchers asserted detailed discussion, recommending severaltheoretical, practical and managerial implications related to the study.

Theoretical and Practical Implications of the Study

The study covers several aspects by recognizing the potential interests pertaining to theTL, project teamwork, and PS factors. The present study is significant by getting the

89


support of two distinct theories; the TL theory, and then to analyze the efficacy of TLunder the open-systems theory. This increased understanding of TL behaviors, can helpto create a ripple effect not only in higher educational institutions of Pakistan but also inother public and private sector organizations of the country.

In a nutshell, the conceptual framework offered in this study represents a sustainablemodel for the success of higher education projects. Although, literature has flourished theimportance of TL and project teamwork in connection to PS, yet ignoring the impact ofthese of studies in non-western countries (Prabhakar, 2005; Takahashi, Ishikawa, & Kanai,2012). Though, the current study is extending the prior literature in major three ways.First, the study offered the mediation effect of project teamwork with four dimensionsbetween TL and PS, for the first time in higher education projects of Pakistan. Second,the study extended the quadruple constraint success model of Pinto and Slevin (1988) byadding the impact of PS on organizational success. Third, the study has discussed TL withcombination of two well-known models, (B. Bass & Avolio, 1995). Thus, the current studyhas extended the scope of project leadership by incorporating higher education sectorof Pakistan. The present research also witnesses that it is not only PMTL that bringspositive change in PS, but also the project teams equally contribute towards achievementof the desired project goals under the ideologies of open-systems theory. Further, thestudy offers empirical evidence that transformational project managers can explain wellthat how PS rates can be enhanced directly and indirectly through project teamwork in adeveloping economy (Pakistan). The projects and the organizations can benefit from theseintangible assets in the shape of having efficient and effective project leaders and teammembers. This research may not only be useful for public and private sector organizationsof the country, but also for similar developing countries suffering from high project failurerates.

Managerial Implications of the Study

The study unveils several managerial implications to the higher educational institutionsand their policymakers. First, organizations have to initiate steps to introduce projectleadership concepts ton increase the chances of PS. Second, the policy-makers and up-per management should take necessary steps to deploy the right person at the righttime for the right projects to avoid and minimize the chances of project failures. In ad-dition, policy-makers of HEC should also spare some resources for conducting trainingand development sessions for the project personnel of HEC itself, and the said public andprivate higher educational employees. Moreover, these higher educational institutionsthemselves can arrange training and development sessions for their project managers andproject team members. In addition, there also needs to spread the awareness of successfulprojects among entire functional departments of the organizations. Third, the organiza-tions should develop a culture that can foster the effectiveness and importance of projectteamwork. There should be a culture of mutual trust and respect for each other. Theseemployees may be considered as the source of intangible yet valuable assets, not only forthe projects but also for organizational success. Furthermore, the organizations may alsocollaborate with professional institutions like PMI and IPMA to offer the latest tools and

90


techniques through regular training and development sessions to their project staffs. Toclose, the study indicates that project leadership and project teamwork can be one of thekey factors in promoting the gradual rise in PS rates which can ultimately contribute tothe national economy. The study believes that organizations and practitioners can benefitby focusing on the suggestions offered in this section. Thus, these suggested managerialimplications in public and private higher educational institutions may prove as an effec-tive source not only for higher educational institutions but also for other business orientedorganizations of the country.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the significance of the study, the research also keeps some limitations. First of all,the study has limitation in terms of geographical boundary. The empirical settings of thestudy were limited only to Pakistani higher education institutions. While there may bean issue of generalizability of research findings to other countries on the globe, especiallythe developed ones. The current study collected the data over one specified period oftime, i.e. cross-sectional. The study research design and limitations discussed above alsoopen up several future research directions. First, it was hard to obtain data from publicsector organizations. It seems that respondents were less keen to provide the relevantinformation through mail questionnaire. Thus, future studies can use different methodsto improve the response rate such as, personal distribution of questionnaire and selectinga particular region where the majority of population can be accessed with reasonable timeand cost.

Leadership is a universal phenomenon, therefore; its effects cannot be limited only toone specific field, sector or a country. For the reason, future studies can be conducted indissimilar organizations across the geographical boundaries to fill this research gap byhighlighting the importance of TL, particularly in Asian developing countries. Moreover,the current study is cross-sectional in nature and future research can be conducted withlongitudinal settings provided that project managers and team members get and practicethe required skills so that the results can be further tabulated and compared with previ-ous ones. The results are specifying, that future studies can gain maximum benefits bydiscussing TL models in a specialized manner. Moreover, project leadership was ignoredin general, particularly in literature of developing countries. Therefore, the future studiescan bridge this theoretical and empirical research gap and may strengthen the conceptsoffered in the study. Most importantly, the results revealed that project teams have ca-pability to play a significant role as dependent, independent and mediating variables.Therefore, future studies can consider project teamwork as a separate independent vari-able in different organizations. Future researches can also introduce different potentialmediators or moderators to investigate the hidden benefits that can be explored in thefield of project management to offer fresh insights.

91


References

Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership andproject success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 34(5), 806–818.

Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Project manager leadership role in improving project perfor-mance. Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13–22.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and orga-nizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moder-ating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The InternationalJournal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8),951–968.

Ayub, A. (2015). Impact of project leadership facets on project outcome. Acta UniversitatisDanubius. Œconomica, 11(4), 13–22.

Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analyticreview of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. TheLeadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire. CA: Mind GardenRedwood City.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of LeadershipStudies, 7(3), 18–40.

Besteiro, E. N. C., de Souza Pinto, J., & Novaski, O. (2015). Success factors in projectmanagement. Business Management Dynamics, 4(9), 19–34.

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, jobsatisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. TheLeadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270–283.

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with amos: Basic concepts, applications, andprogramming. UK: Routledge.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work groupcharacteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847.

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of tl. Journal of Businessand Psychology, 14(3), 389–405.

Chou, H.-W., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-H., & Chuang, W.-W. (2013). Transformational lead-ership and team performance: The mediating roles of cognitive trust and collectiveefficacy. Sage Open, 3(3), 1-10.

Clarke, N. (2010). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leader-ship and key project manager competences. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 5–20.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transforma-tional leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-ment, 17(2), 177–193.

Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z.-X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativityvia individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-

92


focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439–458.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership styles and organisational context.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 105–123.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational lead-ership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45(4), 735–744.

Dwivedula, R., Bredillet, C. N., & Muller, R. (2016). Personality and work motivation asdeterminants of project success: The mediating role of organisational and profes-sional commitment. International Journal of Management Development, 1(3), 229–245.

Fernet, C., Trepanier, S.-G., Austin, S., Gagne, M., & Forest, J. (2015). Transformationalleadership and optimal functioning at work: On the mediating role of employees’perceived job characteristics and motivation. Work & Stress, 29(1), 11–31.

Geoghegan, L., & Dulewicz, V. (2008). Do project managers’ leadership competenciescontribute to project success? Project Management Journal, 39(4), 58–67.

Gundersen, G., Hellesøy, B. T., & Raeder, S. (2012). Leading international project teams:The effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work environments.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 46–57.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: Aglobal perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of group identification:Theory and measurement. Small Group Research, 30(5), 558–581.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Using partial least squares path modeling inadvertising research: Basic concepts and recent issues. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Huemann, M. (2010). Considering human resource management when developing aproject-oriented company: Case study of a telecommunication company. Interna-tional Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 361–369.

Imran, M. K., Ilyas, M., & Aslam, U. (2016). Organizational learning through transforma-tional leadership. The Learning Organization, 23(4), 232–248.

Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Transformational leadership in a project-basedenvironment: A comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers andline managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 609–617.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes forleadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202-210.

Kendra, K., & Taplin, L. J. (2004). Project success: A cultural framework. Project Manage-ment Journal, 35(1), 30–45.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006, dec). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groupsand teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2009). Project leadership revisited: Towards distributedleadership perspectives in project research. International Journal of Project Organisa-tion and Management, 1(3), 285-308.

Lindsjørn, Y., Sjøberg, D. I., Dingsøyr, T., Bergersen, G. R., & Dyba, T. (2016). Teamworkquality and project success in software development: A survey of agile development

93


teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122, 274–286.Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.Martens, C. D. P., Machado, F. J., Martens, M. L., de Oliveira e Silva, F. Q. P., & de Freitas,

H. M. R. (2018). Linking entrepreneurial orientation to project success. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 36(2), 255–266.

Morgan, T. L. (2012). An examination of project managers’ leadership contributions to PSusing critical success factors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University,Minnesota.

Muller, R., Geraldi, J., & Turner, J. R. (2012). Relationships between leadership and successin different types of project complexities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-ment, 59(1), 77–90.

Nixon, P., Harrington, M., & Parker, D. (2012). Leadership performance is significant toproject success or failure: A critical analysis. International Journal of Productivity andPerformance Management, 61(2), 204–216.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors:The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2),327–340.

Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the stages inthe project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14(1), 5–18.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Critical success factors in effective project implementation.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and validation of the leadershippractices inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(2), 483–496.

Prabhakar, G. P. (2005). Switch leadership in projects an empirical study reflecting theimportance of transformational leadership on project success across twenty-eightnations. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 53–60.

Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team perfor-mance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the HumanFactors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540–547.

Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2007). Project success and project team management:Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Man-agement, 26(6), 749–766.

Sheard, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002). Key roles of the leadership landscape. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 17(2), 129–144.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Project management research—the challenge and oppor-tunity. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 93–99.

Slevin, J. K., D. Pand Pinto. (1987). Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementa-tion. Sloan Management Review, 29(1), 33-41.

Sohmen, V. S. (2013). Leadership and teamwork: two sides of the same coin. Journal ofInformational Technology & Economic Development, 4(2), 1-18.

Strang, K. D. (2007). Examining effective technology project leadership traits and behav-iors. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 424–462.

94


Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006). Exploring the linkage between the char-acteristics of it project leaders and project success. Information Systems Management,23(4), 43–49.

Takahashi, K., Ishikawa, J., & Kanai, T. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative studies ofleadership in multinational settings: Meta-analytic and cross-cultural reviews. Jour-nal of World Business, 47(4), 530–538.

Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and controlling for common methodvariance: A review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 142–168.

Tjosvold, D. (1988). Cooperative and competitive dynamics within and between organi-zational units. Human Relations, 41(6), 425–436.

Turner, R., Huemann, M., & Keegan, A. (2008). Human resource management in theproject-oriented organization: Employee well-being and ethical treatment. Interna-tional Journal of Project Management, 26(5), 577–585.

Unger-Aviram, E., Zwikael, O., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2013). Revisiting goals, feedback,recognition, and performance success. Group & Organization Management, 38(5), 570–600.

Verburg, R. M., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting it done: Criticalsuccess factors for project managers in virtual work settings. International Journal ofProject Management, 31(1), 68–79.

Walker, S. K. (2011). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and howthey shape our lives. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3(3), 220–224.

Wang, E., Chou, H.-W., & Jiang, J. (2005). The impacts of charismatic leadership style onteam cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation. Interna-tional Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 173–180.

Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership,identification, and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 775–790.

Yang, L.-R., Huang, C.-F., & Wu, K.-S. (2011). The association among project manager’sleadership style, teamwork and PS. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3),258-267.

Yang, L.-R., Wu, K.-S., & Huang, C.-F. (2013). Validation of a model measuring the effectof a project manager’s leadership style on project performance. KSCE Journal of CivilEngineering, 17(2), 271–280.

Zagorsek, H., Dimovski, V., & Skerlavaj, M. (2009). Transactional and transformationalleadership impacts on organizational learning. Journal of East European ManagementStudies, 14(2), 144–165.

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods.USA: Cengage Learning.

Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2012). A general framework for gauging the performance ofinitiatives to enhance organizational value. British Journal of Management, 23, 6–22.

95

Journal of Management Sciences - Aim · Journal of Management Sciences Other possible clariﬁcation to this fact is that the core job of leaders is to manage work, motivate team

Documents